Example of libertarian-minded govt in action

[Buccaneer]

Here in Colorado, there is a controversal amendment coming up for the voters in mandating a certain percentage of alternative sources for utilities - specifically wind farms. Here was our Council's official stance (btw, CSU is a public utility serving the Pikes Peak area and accountable to the City Council. I have been working for CSU for over 15 years).

[/b]City Council Passes Resolution in Opposition to Amendment 37 [/b]

Sep 28, 2004

The Colorado Springs City Council unanimously passed a resolution on Sept. 28 opposing Amendment 37. If passed by voters in November, Amendment 37 would establish a mandatory renewable energy portfolio standard applicable to certain utilities within the State of Colorado, including Colorado Springs Utilities.

Generally, the position of opposition is based on the following concerns (see resolution for more information):

Colorado Springs Utilities is developing an electric integrated resource plan to determine the optimal mix of renewable resource and other generation and demand side management alternatives over the next 20 years [ ed - I'm helping with this. ]. In the face of this local planning effort, Amendment 37 creates a mandate that does not correspond with the local needs of this community, imposes unwarranted costs upon Colorado Springs Utilities’ customers and removes local control over resource management decisions.

The cost associated with Amendment 37 mandates far exceeds the cost that would be incurred through the pursuit of Colorado Springs Utilities’ electric integrated resource plan. Moreover, the electric integrated resource plan produces air quality improvements comparable to those resulting from the more costly Amendment 37 mandates.

The cap of 50 cents per month for residential customer bills contained within Amendment 37 may only recover some of the costs of the resource portfolio mandates, and this will likely lead to burdensome costs being imposed upon commercial and industrial customer classes.

Amendment 37 disregards the home rule powers of the City of Colorado Springs to make its own resource decisions, and imposes Public Utilities Commission regulatory jurisdiction upon Colorado Springs Utilities.

CSU has been a leader in obtaining power from alternate sources but passing those costs on to those who choose to purchase power from them - and can afford it (usually rich homeowners and businesses). Ironically, further efforts have been stalled by environmentalists in the State - they do not want more reservoirs that can generate hydropower and they do not want more wind farms that can generate wind power. The reasons for opposing wind farms are the blight on the landscape and the blades killing thousands of migratory birds. So taking those issues into consideration (and waiting for newer technologies), how should it be mandated?


Now we have a proposed mandate from the State and the correct action - as our Council demonstrated - is to publically oppose such mandate and let us determine the timing and feasibility of developing alternative powers. In other words, we are a Home Rule city and any decisions affecting the local population should be decided locally - not from the State and not from the Feds. That is libertarianism in action.


(I presume that our friends up in Boulder and Denver would think differently. It's too bad that we would have more local govt wanting to governed by a more central authority instead of taking on the responsibilities themselves. We need more govt like the Springs and less of those willing to continue towards socialism.)

[albionmoonlight]

OK, Bucc--I'll play devil's advocate here (I don't really disagree with you, here, but would like your thoughts on a couple of issues).

1.) Where do you draw the line? The world is larger than the country is larger than a state is larger than a county is larger than a city is larger than a subdivision. Why is the city/town level the proper level to make the decision here? Can't "local control" be used as shorthand for "shrink it down to whatever level of government agrees with me." Again--where do you draw the line of what is "local" and why do you draw it there?

2.) Don't some issues (and environmental issues fit into this nicely) need larger governmental units to deal with larger problems? An ecosystem is a large and fragile thing, and one chink in the armor of defending it can ruin it for everyone. Just to take an example, let's say that the X fish, found only in Colorado, is in danger of going extinct. Let's also say that 90% of the people in the State want to keep it around for whatever reason. Should one or two counties be allowed to hunt the fish to extinction (or destroy its habitat or whatever) because they happen to not care? What about things like national securities regulation? Should the markets suffer because we have 51 different regulatory bodies instead of one SEC to make sure that things work on a uniform level?

Again, I see your point here, but I think that there are a lot of issues that need national or at least state control.

(Though I am all about making much less federal crime and leaving prosecution to the states).

[Surtt]

You mean liberal-minded not libertarian

The libertarians do not believe in government involvement in anything other then common defense and interstate trade.